Support NeoGAF

[KAL2006]

They did the same with Wii U with demos like the Japanese garden demo and other showings that were private. Again, it's a year off, they will show more as it gets done/ready to show. Ports are ports.

Maybe I am making judgement too early, but I personally get the impression Nintendo are going the Wii route again, and focussing on innovation instead of a generational leap from 360/PS3. Except this time the innovation is not going to be as big ad motion, just remember the Motion controls reveal at the old E3, and the hands on impressions of Wii Sports, it was taking the gaming world by storm and it was obvious soon as they revealed Wii, but unfortunately this is not the case with a tablet controller, as iPad already does this as well as many other tablets. By the time Wii U hits the market, you can probably get a iPad for £200. So trying to implement tablet interface on a console, especially with a low ress resistive touchsreen is weird. As for tablet working with the TV for some innovation, the stuff I seen at E3 was nothing specail or as big as motion controls for Wii. Hell the DS has 2 screens and I still haven't seen much point in the 2nd screen thus far (there are a few exceptions though).

 

[Alexios]

Maybe I am making judgement too early

There's no maybe. You are. But there's 50% chance you're right so you can say you called it later.

 

[J.ceaz]

It's too early for all of that, they showed way more than anyone expected.

And therein lies the problem, they shouldn't have been leaking all that crap to the press when they're not even ready to show it yet. Should've waited till TGS/Nintendo world etc.

 

[AceBandage]

And therein lies the problem, they shouldn't have been leaking all that crap to the press when they're not even ready to show it yet. Should've waited till TGS/Nintendo world etc.

You can thank Ubisoft for that. Bunch of big mouths.

 

[POWERSPHERE]

Technically, you can do the finger run on a single touch screen ;p

Ahh, but not a finger long jump & finger stop!

 

[Alexios]

And therein lies the problem, they shouldn't have been leaking all that crap to the press when they're not even ready to show it yet. Should've waited till TGS/Nintendo world etc.

I don't see the problem. I like getting information early and we got more than I expected even if I'm eager to find out a LOT more asap.

And the leaks weren't intentional (by Nintendo as a firm, the individuals obviously wanted to do that) or they wouldn't be leaks.

 

[abstract alien]

Ahh, but not a finger long jump & finger stop!

Would look like you were playing the piano lol

 

[clifftrapremover]

With the WiiU still a year out, an updated screen isn't out of the question. I'd actually expect it to be HD at least...

 

[P90]

Lack of multi-touch in the 3DS was insulting.

Lack it multi-touch in the Wii-U? Urgh. It's the difference between a touch screen that simply works like you expect it to and one you have to slowly adjust and compensate for.

I really don't see the need for multi-touch on the 3DS. The bottom screen is too small for meaningful use in a gaming sense. Nintendo made the right decision there. I can see both sides in regards for the Wii U.

 

[Chao]

I own an ipad and an iphone. I do a lot of illustration and capacitive screens are the worst, you can't even get a clean circle right with these capacitive screens. Its cool for sketchy stuff, you can do cleaner drawings only if you are willing to spend a lot of extra tweaking time.
Capacitive screens are cool for web browsing and that kind of stuff, but I do prefer resistive screens for a device likethis

 

[NewFresh]

3DS works perfect w/o multi-touch and does not suffer because of the lack of it.

Personally I would rather the Wii U not have it, if it allows for lower price point.

 

[entremet]

I remember hearing about a rumor on a podcast on why Nintendo chose the specific red color for the Famicom console. Apparently, it was because it was the cheapest dye available. If that's true it tells you a lot about the company's philosophy.

 

[neoanarch]

With the WiiU still a year out, an updated screen isn't out of the question. I'd actually expect it to be HD at least...

I agree with the first point not so much with the second. What are you talking about 720p on the small screen? What does that the Ipad and similar Pads? I don't think you would notice unless you had a 10 inch screen. I was hoping for multi touch simply becasue I don't see the need for a stylus on the WiiU.


I think Nintendos actually been downplaying touch on the 3ds. Out of their big games at E3 Icarus was the only one that made heavy use of touch. Unless I missed something. Star Fox?

 

[AceBandage]

I remember hearing about a rumor on a podcast on why Nintendo chose the specific red color for the Famicom console. Apparently, it was because it was the cheapest dye available. If that's true it tells you a lot about the company's philosophy.

Yes, that they are a business and are run like a business.

 

[NewFresh]

I remember hearing about a rumor on a podcast on why Nintendo chose the specific red color for the Famicom console. Apparently, it was because it was the cheapest dye available. If that's true it tells you a lot about the company's philosophy.

I have heard that too but it just shows that Nintendo likes to save money and make money, just like every other company out there.

 

[plagiarize]

here's a question that i think is legitimate (someone touched on this, but didn't go exactly this way with it).

Nintendo are known for making sturdy hardware. look at the design of the WiiU controller. it looks at least to me that it has been designed to get *dropped*. capacitive touch screens have another down side. fragility. yes, they are harder to scratch, but they are much easier to shatter.

making a controller out of glass just doesn't seem like something they'd do.

 

[AceBandage]

Well, there are options like Gorilla Glass, but again, that's just adding to the cost needlessly.
If this was a touch only controller, then yes, a capacitive screen would be completely necessary. But it isn't.

 

[SolarPowered]

Capacitive vs Resistive is really a minor thing in the grand scheme of things. The controller is already a hit with the gaming press and it's a great blend of innovation and established ideas. Nintendo has actual areas where they need to improve and controller design/ergonomics is not one of them.

With the WiiU still a year out, an updated screen isn't out of the question. I'd actually expect it to be HD at least...

You'd be in the minority on this one. The tablet controller was engineered about as well as it could be outside of a few issues(analog nubs and possible button placement/sizes).

There is no good reason to pay for a 720p image on a six inch screen. It's a bad idea and you should feel bad. If the power and image issues were about the console instead of the controller then we'd be talking.

 

[Lagaff]

I have heard that too but it just shows that Nintendo likes to save money and make money, just like every other company out there.

Sony and microsoft give you more value for your money ie vita ps3/360
Nintendo make profit day one so it's not the same philosophy for all the compagny.

 

[Oppo]

I get the use of resistive screens in the 3DS. As pointed out it actually is a BC issue with old DS games (although if they really want to, they cold have solved it with software). Plus those screens are just a bit too small to make capacitive work.

Wii U controller, no excuse for lack of capacitive screen. That is purely a cost cutting measure.

Remember that when you have pinch-to-zoom, the size your finger tip becomes less important, because you can zoom in and out so effortlessly. This is how we can see amazing finger-made illustrations from an iPhone end up on the cover of the New Yorker.

I was going to point out the Zen Bound example; that's a very cool multitouch game (that's very popular and high quality) that will definitely lose some of it's charm if it were to make its way to Wii U.

 

[AceBandage]

Sony and microsoft give you more value for your money ie vita ps3/360
Nintendo make profit day one so it's not the same philosophy for all the compagny.

Right, Sony and MS have other branches that can eat the lost BILLIONS for selling their products at a loss.
Nintendo does not.

 

[Penguin]

Maybe I am making judgement too early, but I personally get the impression Nintendo are going the Wii route again, and focussing on innovation instead of a generational leap from 360/PS3. Except this time the innovation is not going to be as big ad motion, just remember the Motion controls reveal at the old E3, and the hands on impressions of Wii Sports, it was taking the gaming world by storm and it was obvious soon as they revealed Wii, but unfortunately this is not the case with a tablet controller, as iPad already does this as well as many other tablets. By the time Wii U hits the market, you can probably get a iPad for £200. So trying to implement tablet interface on a console, especially with a low ress resistive touchsreen is weird. As for tablet working with the TV for some innovation, the stuff I seen at E3 was nothing specail or as big as motion controls for Wii. Hell the DS has 2 screens and I still haven't seen much point in the 2nd screen thus far (there are a few exceptions though).

You are comparing the Wii's 3rd "Reveal" to the Wii U's first though.

When we first learned of the Revolution we only got a shell of a console really.
And then a controller reveal months later.

We haven't got final games for Wii U yet, and even still sounded like lines for the device were long going by attendees impressions.

 

[Boss Doggie]

It's really hard to get a productive discussion when the pro-multi touch are simply just putting their fingers in their ears while repeating the same spiel.

 

[SolarPowered]

I can get how people feel betrayed. The Gamecube was designed in a manner that allowed people to play games of a fidelity that sometimes surpassed their competitor's products. People expected that this time around, but it was specifically in regards to the next offerings from Microsoft and Sony.

Most people(sane people) expected that Nintendo's console would get outdone by Microsoft and Sony's offerings in a few years, but they were fine with this so long as it seemed like Nintendo made an earnest effort in the departments that most people care about(visuals and online). It seems like the WiiU is not even that far ahead of the 360 and PS3(All we have to go on is the single Zelda tech demo since the rest of the games were designed to look more like a classic Wii game and we have no definitive statements regarding the online details) in many ways already and it's not a surprise that people are getting frustrated.

Right, Sony and MS have other branches that can eat the lost BILLIONS for selling their products at a loss.
Nintendo does not.

The idea that Nintendo should spend some cash is not that crazy. They've made a killing off the Wii and it's perfectly possible to make a great console with great hardware and software at a modest price. Nintendo is far too stingy for a company that has been making profits since before Gaf even existed. The GC was sold nearly at parity and Nintendo made great profits from it. The fact that it sold terribly has no relation with how well it was designed, but how well it was marketed(and supported by third parties).

Their is no reason for them to skimp on features when they are absolutely loaded.

It's really hard to get a productive discussion when the pro-multi touch are simply just putting their fingers in their ears while repeating the same spiel.

I've never used a multi touch screen before(or maybe I've never noticed the difference). It seems like a could open up a lot of new avenues of creativity, but I'd rather not pay more money for this yet.

What are the big advantages over resistive?

 

[AceBandage]

Right, but we have no idea how much the system will cost or what components are inside. People are just automatically assuming that Nintendo is going to charge like $400 for something that is weaker than the 360 and have a black and white screen.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

There's definite situations where capacitative touchscreens are superior, but that's not true in all instances. I'm not just talking about gameplay issues (though those certainly factor in), but cost, durability, usability with other peripherals like bog-standard styli.

The fact that people think resistive is 100% always useless in comparison means Apple has a really fantastic marketing department.

 

[Oppo]

Right, Sony and MS have other branches that can eat the lost BILLIONS for selling their products at a loss.
Nintendo does not.

That's not our concern as consumers, though. What do we care about, other than the value offering?

By the way, iPhone stylii cost between $2 and $10. You can even get capacitive fingertip gloves.

 

[AceBandage]

That's not our concern as consumers, though. What do we care about, other than the value offering?

Right, if you don't find Nintendo's products to be worth it, then don't buy them.

 

[marc^o^]

In terms of gaming possibilities, I have seen more convincing touchscreen games on DS than on iPad. I downloaded PicoPICT last week and the level of precision you need here is not achievable on an iPad. Same for Meteos, Yoshi Touch & Go, etc.

Both technologies have their strengths.

 

[Mr_Brit]

In terms of gaming possibilities, I have seen more convincing touchscreen games on DS than on iPad. I downloaded PicoPICT last week and the level of precision you need here is not achievable on an iPad. Same for Meteos, Yoshi Touch & Go, etc.

Both technologies have their strengths.

Capacitive screens support styluses just like the DS. Except for cost I see no reason to go for a resistive screen on Wii U.

 

[NewFresh]

Right, but we have no idea how much the system will cost or what components are inside. People are just automatically assuming that Nintendo is going to charge like $400 for something that is weaker than the 360 and have a black and white screen.

They should just slap on the OG gameboy screen on the Wii U controller

 

[345triangle]

games like ouendan, meteos, kirby canvas curse and trauma center would all play far worse on a capacitative screen, and i think resistive is clearly the right tech for 3DS.

i don't think so when it comes to wii U, though, because even a bunch of nintendo's own examples (othello, shuriken, etc) would work better with capacitative tech. big screens should be as easy as possible to touch.

 

[The Technomancer]

games like ouendan, meteos, kirby canvas curse and trauma center would all play far worse on a capacitative screen, and i think resistive is clearly the right tech for 3DS.

i don't think so when it comes to wii U, though, because even a bunch of nintendo's own examples (othello, shuriken, etc) would work better with capacitative tech. big screens should be as easy as possible to touch.

WiiU is much much more of a mixed case, I agree. I think resistive is a better choice for traditional gaming, but like you said, games like Othello would benefit from multi-touch.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

WiiU is much much more of a mixed case, I agree. I think resistive is a better choice for traditional gaming, but like you said, games like Othello would benefit from multi-touch.

How would Othello benefit from multi-touch?

 

[The Technomancer]

How would Othello benefit from multi-touch?

Phrased that wrong, two player games played on the WiiU tablet could benefit immensely from multi-touch. Not actually Othello, my bad.

 

[SolarPowered]

If going resistive saves both Nintendo and myself the cash then they're killing two birds with one stone and I can appreciate that. I love the visuals produced by the 360 and PS3, but I'm not going to pretend like I'll always be ready to pay for those kinds of jumps.

Nintendo can go the safe and reliable route if it means that I get to save the cash. There are also seem to be many new ideas that are ripe for the picking now that we have a tablet controller to play with. I'm good on this front and it's honestly one of the smaller issues for most of us to worry about in my opinion.

Right, but we have no idea how much the system will cost or what components are inside. People are just automatically assuming that Nintendo is going to charge like $400 for something that is weaker than the 360 and have a black and white screen.

Doesn't help when Nintendo gets extremely secretive if anyone asks about the console or even the games they are making. The fact of the matter is that most people's perceptions of the console(outside of ridiculous trolls that say that Killer freaks looks like a Wii title or an xbox game) are not that far out of this world when you look at how Nintendo presented it to the press and the enthusiasts watching the E3 conference.

Hell, most normal consumers still can't wrap their heads around how big of an improvement the 3DS is over the regular DS. It's very possible that the average consumer will look at the WiiU as slightly beefed up Wii which is much worse than anything normal forum posters have said(normal, not trolls). Oh, and Nintendo never really had the perception of a stingy company until recently. The Wii was the first real sign of this and the profit strategy was understandable when the console was released as a possible lame duck(so they made it cheap to recover R&D and make a new console in a worst case scenario). The 3DS was just a cash grab plain and simple. They even admitted as much when they said that they raised the price in reaction to the hype. Sony would have stuffed an extre 256mb of RAM or added extra features to reach price parity if they were in Nintendo's shoes(maybe even gone further which is not all that necessary), but we get to line Nintendo's pockets instead(in the 3DS case, I'm not going to assume that Nintendo will do it again or always) and that is where the conflict arises for many people here.

 

[marc^o^]

Capacitive screens support styluses just like the DS. Except for cost I see no reason to go for a resistive screen on Wii U.

I have tried 3 different stylus on iPad and they all suck, including the Pogo stylus that got good reviews.

 

[Oppo]

If going resistive saves both Nintendo and myself the cash then they're killing two birds with one stone and I can appreciate that. I love the visuals produced by the 360 and PS3, but I'm not going to pretend like I'll always be ready to pay for those kinds of jumps.

Nintendo can go the safe and reliable route if it means that I get to save the cash.

You didn't save the cash, they did. I mean the 3DS is still $250.

Oh, and Nintendo never really had the perception of a stingy company until recently.

That is... really not true. Nintendo is famous for this. Always has been.

 

[KAL2006]

You are comparing the Wii's 3rd "Reveal" to the Wii U's first though.

When we first learned of the Revolution we only got a shell of a console really.
And then a controller reveal months later.

We haven't got final games for Wii U yet, and even still sounded like lines for the device were long going by attendees impressions.

The difference here is Wii U's first reveal is more closer to Wii's 3rd reveal. They have the concept locked down, and basically showing how it will play. When Revolution was first announced we had no idea what it was. All I am saying is Nintendo probably are expecting Wii U to be the next Wii (thus the name), basically not a graphical beast, with a generational leap from PS3/360, but a system that has innovation with the screen, like Wii had with motion. My argument is that the screen gimmick is not going to be anywhere near the level of motion gimmick, which means Nintendo are just stuck with a system that basically is the same as 360/PS3. I bet Nintendo were hoping they would have got the same big positive response as Wii when it first was revealed, but the excitement of the crowd isn't anywhere near the level of Wii first hands on at E3.

My argument with the tablet controller is what is the point, when people can just get a iPad which would cost much less by the time Wii U launches, and you can use it in any room or outside, as well as it having a higher res screen, and not low res resistive screen. Tablet working with the TV doesn't seem like anything special or innovative, I have seen the stuff at E3, and it fails to impress me, having a 2nd screen is nice, but it is not needed, in fact DS 2nd screen wasn't needed much (there are a few exceptions).

With the combination of
doubt of decent online (recent articles I read don't give me any confidence)
no big generational leap
can't use controller anywhere outside of the room
maybe not being able to use multiple Wii U controllers at once
no killer innovation to fall back on due to lame graphics leap (tablet innovation is not big enough)

 

[NewFresh]

The difference here is Wii U's first reveal is more closer to Wii's 3rd reveal. They have the concept locked down, and basically showing how it will play. When Revolution was first announced we had no idea what it was. All I am saying is Nintendo probably are expecting Wii U to be the next Wii (thus the name), basically not a graphical beast, with a generational leap from PS3/360, but a system that has innovation with the screen, like Wii had with motion. My argument is that the screen gimmick is not going to be anywhere near the level of motion gimmick, which means Nintendo are just stuck with a system that basically is the same as 360/PS3. I bet Nintendo were hoping they would have got the same big positive response as Wii when it first was revealed, but the excitement of the crowd isn't anywhere near the level of Wii first hands on at E3.

My argument with the tablet controller is what is the point, when people can just get a iPad which would cost much less by the time Wii U launches, and you can use it in any room or outside, as well as it having a higher res screen, and not low res resistive screen. Tablet working with the TV doesn't seem like anything special or innovative, I have seen the stuff at E3, and it fails to impress me, having a 2nd screen is nice, but it is not needed, in fact DS 2nd screen wasn't needed much (there are a few exceptions).

With the combination of
doubt of decent online (recent articles I read don't give me any confidence)
no big generational leap
can't use controller anywhere outside of the room
maybe not being able to use multiple Wii U controllers at once
no killer innovation to fall back on due to lame graphics leap (tablet innovation is not big enough)

First of all we still do not know the internals of the hardware so jumping to the conclusion that it will only look as good as ps/360 is a bit off. This is still the FIRST outing of the system, I know that it is deeper/wider than the Wii's first but we haven't even seen complete games running on the system.
Also Nintendo have made it clear that this is not a tablet.

 

[marc^o^]

KAL2006, there is something special and innovative with this 2nd screen (far beyond what DS could do) and this swiss army knife controller. There have been tremendous impressions from developpers and big queues at E3 Nintendo's booth. But you can't admit it, because you are a notorious Sony fanboy.

 

[Sianos]

I'm still curious how we know what the final power/specs of the console will be. Pixel counters on an off screen video? All that's been shown is two early tech demos, some 360/PS3 footage (that looks worse than 360/PS3 footage, etc.), and a screen in the controller.

I see it as bad form to declare a console to be dead on arrival really bad when all we've been shown are other console's footage (lol) and a few tech demos.

At least wait until specs are confirmed to do so.

EDIT: Really bad, dead on arrival, same difference.

 

[KAL2006]

First of all we still do not know the internals of the hardware so jumping to the conclusion that it will only look as good as ps/360 is a bit off. This is still the FIRST outing of the system, I know that it is deeper/wider than the Wii's first but we haven't even seen complete games running on the system.
Also Nintendo have made it clear that this is not a tablet.

The reason I am jumping to conclusions is obvious, because if a company is confident with their graphical capabilitie so their tech, they would showcase it straight away, just like MS did with 360, Sony did with PS3 and even Nintendo did with GC. With Wii U it is extremely obvios they are going the Wii route again, no question about it.

As for Wii U controller not being a tablet, well the standard tablet capabilities like web browser, application were shown in the trailer, as wlel as tablet like board games, it is obvious Nintendo is going in this direction of course along with the innovation of the tablet controller working with the TV (which I am not impressed with at all).

KAL2006, there is something special and innovative with this 2nd screen (far beyond what DS could do) and this swiss army knife controller. There have been tremendous impressions from developpers and big queues at E3 Nintendo's booth. But you can't admit it, because you are a notorious Sony fanboy.

It is quite ridiculous to call me a fanboy, what I am giving is my impressions to what I have seen and I am being honest

I'm still curious how we know what the final power/specs of the console will be. Pixel counters on an off screen video? All that's been shown is two early tech demos, some 360/PS3 footage (that looks worse than 360/PS3 footage, etc.), and a screen in the controller.

I see it as bad form to declare a console to be dead on arrival when all we've been shown are other console's footage (lol) and a few tech demos.

At least wait until specs are confirmed to do so.

No one is stating this, I just think it won't be as successful as Wii was, Nintendo will always be succesfull due to their franchises, but I think they have made bad decitions with both 3DS and Wii U and think both systems won't be as succesfull as their previous systems due to lack of innovation and competition being stronger.

 

[Sianos]

The reason I am jumping to conclusions is obvious, because if a company is confident with their graphical capabilitie so their tech, they would showcase it straight away, just like MS did with 360, Sony did with PS3 and even Nintendo did with GC. With Wii U it is extremely obvios they are going the Wii route again, no question about it.

As for Wii U controller not being a tablet, well the standard tablet capabilities like web browser, application were shown in the trailer, as wlel as tablet like board games, it is obvious Nintendo is going in this direction of course along with the innovation of the tablet controller working with the TV (which I am not impressed with at all).

Which is why they showed tech demos?

This fits with my logic that Nintendo both showed too little yet too much, as people will doubt the syetm's graphics capabilities because they do not yet have very many visually stunning games/tech demos to show yet.

Spoiler

Also, what does this still have to do with resitive and capacitive touchscreens?

 

[Leona Lewis]

I have an itouch, please point me to games with clever designed multitouch. I have stopped DLing games on my touch some time ago so maybe there are some good examples? And I don't mean buttons/pad substitutes.

Air Hockey on one device (iPad) is super fun. Fruit Ninja also benefits from it, for obvious reasons.

But yeah, there aren't that many examples of gameplay that REQUIRES multitouch, especially on devices that already have buttons.

 

[boyshine]

My argument with the tablet controller is what is the point, when people can just get a iPad which would cost much less by the time Wii U launches, and you can use it in any room or outside, as well as it having a higher res screen, and not low res resistive screen. Tablet working with the TV doesn't seem like anything special or innovative, I have seen the stuff at E3, and it fails to impress me, having a 2nd screen is nice, but it is not needed, in fact DS 2nd screen wasn't needed much (there are a few exceptions).

With the combination of
doubt of decent online (recent articles I read don't give me any confidence)
no big generational leap
can't use controller anywhere outside of the room
maybe not being able to use multiple Wii U controllers at once
no killer innovation to fall back on due to lame graphics leap (tablet innovation is not big enough)

You're not getting it at all. It's not about tablet style gameplay. It's about traditional controller gameplay BUT with added touchscreen functionality and second screen display. I will never be able to play the next-next COD in 1080P on my TV using dual analog and buttons with an iPad. I'll get that on WiiU. I'll also get brand new features thanks to the controller screen which is completely separate from the TV screen with things like quick weapon change, drone control, gyro controlled sniper aim, HUD free TV display, real time game stats on the controller screen while playing, .. and so on.. it's about making traditional gaming even better and more fun.

 

[Stumpokapow]

The reason I am jumping to conclusions is obvious, because if a company is confident with their graphical capabilitie so their tech, they would showcase it straight away, just like MS did with 360, Sony did with PS3 and even Nintendo did with GC.

Sony's first "showcase" of the PS3 was computer graphics; that they ended up coming close to it in the end is irrelevant, they bragging from 2005 had nothing to do with the system's actual capabilities.

Microsoft's first showcase of the 360 was Wall-guy, a demonstration that looked significantly worse than titles appearing on the Xbox at the time.

But yeah, there aren't that many examples of gameplay that REQUIRES multitouch, especially on devices that already have buttons.

Any same-device simultaneous multiplayer requires multitouch, naturally. Nintendo demonstrated Reversi (was it Reversi? I don't have the demo handy. The board looked closer to Go but I remember there being a flip-capture mechanic) as an example of playing games on the controller itself, but if they ever want to progress beyond board games, they will need multitouch to enable that.

 

[AceBandage]

DID SOME ONE SUMMON WALL GUY?!

 

[M3d10n]

Capacitive screens support styluses just like the DS. Except for cost I see no reason to go for a resistive screen on Wii U.

But capacitive stylus don't work as good because they go directly against the fundamentals of how capacitive input surfaces are supposed work. Also, you either have a rubberized nib which is harder to drag over the screen or a hard nib which increases the risks of scratches because the screen is made of glass.

 

[dallow_bg]

Can't believe anyone is defending resistive tech.

But capacitive stylus don't work as good because they go directly against the fundamentals of how capacitive input surfaces are supposed work. Also, you either have a rubberized nib which is harder to drag over the screen or a hard nib which increases the risks of scratches because the screen is made of glass.

Its not going to scratch the glass.